I'm a privacy pragmatist, writing about the intersection of law, technology, social media and our personal information. If you have story ideas or tips, e-mail me at khill@forbes.com. PGP key here.
These days, I'm a senior online editor at Forbes. I was previously an editor at Above the Law, a legal blog, relying on the legal knowledge gained from two years working for corporate law firm Covington & Burling -- a Cliff's Notes version of law school.
In the past, I've been found slaving away as an intern in midtown Manhattan at The Week Magazine, in Hong Kong at the International Herald Tribune, and in D.C. at the Washington Examiner. I also spent a few years traveling the world managing educational programs for international journalists for the National Press Foundation.
I have few illusions about privacy -- feel free to follow me on Twitter: kashhill, subscribe to me on Facebook, Circle me on Google+, or use Google Maps to figure out where the Forbes San Francisco bureau is, and come a-knockin'.

Google Glass Facial Recognition App Draws Senator Franken's Ire

Google said years ago that facial recognition (of strangers) is the one technology it’s holding back because it’s creepy. It has told developers for Google Glass that it doesn’t want them incorporating it into apps, but at leasttwo groups have said they’ve done it and that people will be able to use it on jailbroken Google Glasses (or Glassi?). NameTag, an app from FacialNetwork.com, has been more aggressive in marketing their “Minority Report For Dating” service, telling journalists that it will pull info and photos from dating sites like Match and OkCupid, sex offender databases, and from people willing to upload their information to the site. In other words, it wants to make this cartoon come true.

Sen. Al Franken, one of the most recognizable faces in the Senate, has been voicing concerns about the use of the technology by the FBI and companies like Facebook for years. So it’s no surprise that he’s unhappy about the Nevada-based NameTag’s plans. He sent a letter to app creator Kevin Alan Tussey expressing his “deep concern” and asking him to delay the app’s launch.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn) doesn’t want the rest of the world to be as recognizable as he is.

“According to promotional materials, NameTag lets strangers get a broad range of personal information—including a person’s name, photos, and dating website profiles—simply by looking at that person’s face with the Glass camera,” writes Franken. “This is apparently done without that person’s knowledge or consent, which crosses a bright line for privacy and personal safety.”

We may well be heading toward a world in which facial recognition is as ubiquitous (and maybe as welcome) as caller i.d., but Franken wants Tussey to hold off until the law catches up with what technology is capable of.

“NameTag purports to make ‘the big, anonymous world we live in as friendly as a small town,’” writes Franken. “But there can be safety in anonymity, and for many people, letting strangers identify them by name is a threat to that safety.”

The senator does point out that what NameTag wants to do isn’t actually illegal, even if privacy-lovers find it ugly and Google has forbidden it on their platforms. “No specific federal law governs this technology, so early adopter companies such as yours will play a vital role in determining the extent to which privacy and personal safety are protected,” writes Franken. ” Your company has a duty to act as a responsible corporate citizen in deploying this technology, which must be done in a manner that respects and protects individual privacy.”

Franken urges NameTag to make its service opt-in, so that people will only be recognized with it if they choose. The company says it only pulls publicly available data into its app, releasing a statement that it still plans to make its service opt-out rather than opt-in and that the service is meant to help protect people, allowing women for example to see whether a dude in a bar is a sex offender.

“ No home addresses or personal phone numbers will be displayed on NameTag. No one under 18 years of age will knowingly be included. Most importantly, anyone that wishes to opt-out will be able to do so by visiting the NameTag site and filling out a brief form that will remain completely confidential,” says creator Tussy. “Facial recognition technology is a reality. We understand that it carries the potential for the invasion of the privacy that Americans hold so dear. We are developing NameTag in a way that ensures the protection of those rights.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I can imagine a version for law enforcement that overlays iconography over individuals in the scene summarising a number of relevant metrics. For example:

1. Past record of interaction with the authorities.

2. Social proximity to known criminals based on social media connections, shared-location & telephony metadata, possibly weighted by an “influencer” score.

3. Propensity for criminal behaviour, politically oppositional / non-mainstream views and interests based on reading history, browsing history and past participation in on-line public discourse & forums, as reported by a predictive model.

What if police could already do this, simply by typing your name or license plate into that computer they all have in their cars? What does glass have to do with it, and why would they bother putting extra money into developing a platform for a new (and relatively expensive piece of) technology, rather than cheaply implement it into an existing system.

Sen Franken, a long time ally of the State Intelligence Apparatus (NSA/CIA/Etc.) is demonstrating false concern for individual privacy. His support of #NSA spying on Americans is evidence he really doesn’t care.

What Franken DOES care about is the use of this technology by average citizens to identify the very “Spooks” who contribute so significantly to him staying in power. Just think of the implications of being able to glance around a room, airport, etc. and know who all the spies, undercover cops, IRS agents, etc. were!

Does anyone other than the far left liberals that got him elected (note I said liberals not democrats) really care at all what this hypocrite has to say, seriously?

What qualifications does Mr Franken have other than SNL, which he wasn’t that good. Senator Franken please do us all a favor, shut-up on things you seriously have no clue about at all. I mean even your quote shows how ridiculously ignorant you are: “NameTag purports to make ‘the big, anonymous world we live in as friendly as a small town,’” writes Franken. “But there can be safety in anonymity, and for many people, letting strangers identify them by name is a threat to that safety.”

Newsflash, if I were NameTag, Id have USPS send it back, marked postage due and tell Franken to stick it. This is not about Privacy at all, what a fake.

This is really stupid. Everyone get up in arms whenever a new Glass app is created. The majority of the people commenting on them have never used Glass and have probably never even seen on in public. The fact is there are 37 apps available for Glass presently. Yes you can unlock the device and do whatever you want to it but that makes it an even smaller number of people in an very small minority already that are able to use the app. People need to understand that very few people care who you are and care even less to record you. If someone actually does care, they are already recording you with the thousands of smaller, less noticeable cameras that are already on sale.

There is a simple technicality that many are unaware of that helps, I think, to frame what can be a messy debate. It might actually be irrelevant that NameTag uses “public” information. The technicality is that the NameTag process, without doubt, creates fresh pieces of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and sends them back to its users, as well as retaining that fresh PII for the company’s ongoing use.

What is PII? The US government General Services Administration defines PII as “information that can be used to distinguish an individual’s identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information” (seehttp://lockstep.com.au/blog/2013/09/27/pii-or-not-pii). It is undeniable that NameTag creates new PII, even if its face search engine uses existing photos harvested from the public domain. The face search engine is given a new anonymous photo and matches it with its lists of old named photos, to come up with a result “the new photo is of Alice”. It is that conclusion that represents fresh PII. See diagram here: https://twitter.com/Steve_Lockstep/status/432372665446174721

Now, so what? Well in many parts of the world, there are strict limits on the collection of PII, especially without consent. Note that even if photos of Alice exist in the public domain, the creation of fresh PII that says “the new photo is of Alice” is done behind her back. In Australia in fact, this type of PII cannot be created/collected without express consent, because biometric data is counted as Sensitive PII. And if the NameTag result “this is Alice” is wrong, then it is still Personally Identifiable Information, albeit erroneous information.

In the USA, notoriously there is no general data protection statute governing PII in the private sector, so as Sen Franken says, NameTag might not be in breach the law. An interesting question is whether users of the NameTag search engine who are themselves situated in stricter privacy regimes could be in breach of their local laws.

When NameTag and its critics engage on these matters, I hope they might be able to adopt a clearer framework for understanding what’s going on: biometric face search processes clearly create and therefore collect new PII. And as privacy advocates contemplate what type of law reform in the US would be worthwhile, they should look to the broad definition of PII they already have.

Imagine if we could use Glass to spot Amber Alert perpetrators, or escaped felons? Wouldn’t that be a great boost to public safety and security? If everyone could be an eye for the law and public good without even knowing the creep that just bumped into them is a wanted killer?